Writers call for AI oversight

Scholar power: 48.5%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Timnit Gebru	33%	24	48.5%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

58.0%

1.7 h

3

48.5%

Ranking score

0.857

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Reposted by Catherine D’Ignazio, Lilian Edwards, Lisa W. Fazio , and 4 more Catherine D’Ignazio, Lilian Edwards, Lisa W. Fazio, Michael A. Clemens, Thomas Masterson, Graham Webster, Els Torreele

26%

Scholar power: 26.6%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Catherine D’Ignazio	20%	23	9.6%
🎓 Lilian Edwards	15%	24	7.3%
🎓 Lisa W. Fazio	8%	29	4.3%
🎓 Michael A. Clemens	6%	43	3.9%
🎓 Thomas Masterson	3%	11	1.0%
🎓 Graham Webster	1%	16	0.4%
🎓 Els Torreele	0%	27	0.0%
Total			26.6%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

54.0%

18.3 h

1061

26.6%

Ranking score

0.262

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Dr Abeba Birhane

@abeba.blacksky.app

over the past few weeks several AI evaluation/cybersecurity experts have explained how what's happening is a result of human incompetence rather than "AI going rogue". I'm begging the media to show a shred of journalistic integrity and stop parroting what altman or amodei say

The Independent @the-independent.com · 22h

An OpenAI system has gone rogue again – and it is the most panic-inducing yet

‘Our models took actions we did not intend,’ ChatGPT maker admits after latest outrage

trib.al

September 24, 2026 at 8:12 PM

Reposted by Suresh Venkatasubramanian

25%

Scholar power: 25.2%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Suresh Venkatasubramanian	38%	44	25.2%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

47.0%

1.3 h

5

25.2%

Ranking score

0.222

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Nathan Lambert

@natolambert.bsky.social

Hearing AI regulation is in the air, especially with a misguided tone of “open dangerous, closed safe” so it felt timely to re-up this one. There are ways to make the AI industry safer without kneecapping transparency, education, and competition.
www.interconnects.ai/p/banning-op...

Banning Open Source AI Would Be A Mistake

This post was originally an op-ed co-authored with Kevin Xu of Interconnected for a general, non-technical audience.

www.interconnects.ai

September 25, 2026 at 1:12 PM

by Jurgen Schmidhuber

115%

Scholar power: 115.1%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Jurgen Schmidhuber	40%	92	115.1%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

45.0%

18.1 h

8

115.1%

Ranking score

0.215

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Reposted by Timnit Gebru

16%

Scholar power: 16.2%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Timnit Gebru	33%	24	16.2%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

54.0%

1.9 h

3

16.2%

Ranking score

0.183

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

by Pedro Domingos

101%

Scholar power: 101.7%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Pedro Domingos	37%	84	101.7%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

45.0%

15.9 h

1

101.7%

Ranking score

0.147

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Reposted by Shannon Vallor, Brigitte Nerlich, John Hogan

12%

Scholar power: 12.7%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Shannon Vallor	11%	18	4.7%
🎓 Brigitte Nerlich	7%	51	5.0%
🎓 John Hogan	7%	19	3.1%
Total			12.7%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

52.0%

4.6 h

29

12.7%

Ranking score

0.109

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Kim A. Wagner

@kimatiwagner.bsky.social

Having just started teaching new undergraduates at uni, I think we're missing a key issue in the debate about AI: these kids do not know how *not* to use AI, full stop. We assume they are 'digital natives' but they are not and a Google Scholar search is as alien to them as an archival card-index.

September 25, 2026 at 9:52 AM

Reposted by Jurgen Schmidhuber

38%

Scholar power: 38.4%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Jurgen Schmidhuber	40%	92	38.4%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

48.0%

22.6 h

199

38.4%

Ranking score

0.107

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

by Patrick Dunleavy Reposted by Terry Gourvish

19%

Scholar power: 19.0%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Patrick Dunleavy	9%	46	18.3%
🎓 Terry Gourvish	2%	12	0.7%
Total			19.0%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index + sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

54.0%

4.1 h

3

19.0%

Ranking score

0.078

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Patrick Dunleavy

@patrickdunleavy.bsky.social

What happens when citizens use AI and social media to start reshaping their relationships with government?
We're seeking novel theory & empirics for our new "Public Policy Journal" Special Issue publicpolicyjournal.org/special-issu...

September 25, 2026 at 10:20 AM

by Joanna Bryson

25%

Scholar power: 25.5%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Joanna Bryson	15%	32	25.5%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

53.0%

5.2 h

1

25.5%

Ranking score

0.064

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Joanna Bryson

@j2bryson.bsky.social

Nothing that sophisticated! See eg joanna-bryson.blogspot.com/2025/02/gene... or recent publication with @chrisschmitz.ai

Generative AI Use and Human Agency

artificial and natural intelligence, including politics, policy, ethics and security

joanna-bryson.blogspot.com

September 25, 2026 at 9:14 AM

by Solomon Messing

22%

Scholar power: 22.5%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Solomon Messing	16%	22	22.5%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

48.0%

3.8 h

0

22.5%

Ranking score

0.061

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Reposted by Fabrice Ardhuin, Daniel Huppmann, Giulio Mattioli

1%

Scholar power: 1.8%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Fabrice Ardhuin	1%	65	0.8%
🎓 Daniel Huppmann	1%	25	0.5%
🎓 Giulio Mattioli	1%	29	0.5%
Total			1.8%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

49.0%

7.7 h

43

1.8%

Ranking score

0.048

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Prof Julia Steinberger 🌹🌱🌍 #ClimateAction #Fightfascism

@jksteinberger.bsky.social

In case it wasn't clear, academia is crumbling under the enormous flood of AI-generated content. The latest victim is the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) flagship EU postdoctoral fellowships. The number of submissions has more than doubled in the past 3 years.

Hannes Cools @hannescools.bsky.social · 7d

The academic grant system is extremely broken.

21.627 submissions...

That is how many proposals the Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowships received this month. Two years ago it was 10,360. The budget did not move. The success rate went from around 16% to something close to 7%.

September 25, 2026 at 6:48 AM

by Patrick Dunleavy

18%

Scholar power: 18.3%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Patrick Dunleavy	9%	46	18.3%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

50.0%

4.1 h

0

18.3%

Ranking score

0.045

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Reposted by Bessma Momani

3%

Scholar power: 3.9%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Bessma Momani	8%	24	3.9%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

56.0%

2.2 h

8

3.9%

Ranking score

0.043

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Hypervisible

@hypervisible.blacksky.app

“The reality is, we don’t have to wait to see how AI will bring about unprecedented death and destruction, because we’ve already witnessed its unleashing.”

It’s not hypothetical: the dangers of AI are already here | Granate Kim and Mohamed Hussein

Israel and the US have used AI to kill in Gaza and Iran, while law enforcement uses it in surveillance and arrests. The future is here

www.theguardian.com

September 25, 2026 at 12:18 PM

Reposted by Lisa W. Fazio

4%

Scholar power: 4.3%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Lisa W. Fazio	8%	29	4.3%

Formula for scholar power: sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

51.0%

3.7 h

25

4.3%

Ranking score

0.041

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Jacqueline Antonovich

@jackiantonovich.bsky.social

-Did the AI actually “go rogue,” or did a human tell it to do something?
-Does “AI decided” actually mean “a company decided”?
-Does the "study" make the claim in the headline?
-Did this happen spontaneously in the wild, or in an experiment specifically designed to make it happen?

September 25, 2026 at 10:47 AM

by Ian Hall

12%

Scholar power: 12.0%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Ian Hall	8%	25	12.0%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

56.0%

5.9 h

0

12.0%

Ranking score

0.036

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Ian Hall

@drianhall.bsky.social

What are we doing, folks? I mean, really.

John Stott @jpsastro.bsky.social · 1d

Had a UKRI funded grant proposal rejected at the "AI triage stage". "This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review." 🧪 #academicsky

I am writing to let you know that, unfortunately, your application was not successful.

Review process

As part of the initial triage of the 179 proposals submitted to this call, each was assessed using an AI-based review. Every proposal was read independently by several different AI models against the same seven criteria used to shape this call (including cyber security relevance, research quality and novelty, importance of the problem addressed, feasibility of the project plan, likely outputs and impact, value for money, and responsible research practice), with each model asked to give a score and a written justification with supporting quotations from the text. To guard against any one model's idiosyncrasies, we also ran a second, independent process in which different AI models debated the merits and weaknesses of each proposal before reaching a judgement, again against the same criteria. Scores from both processes were combined to produce an overall ranking.

This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review. Projects selected for funding were drawn from those that progressed to the full human review stage. We recognise that AI-assisted assessment is a new and evolving part of the review process, and we are continuing to evaluate how well it aligns with the judgements of human reviewers on this call. We will soon produce a document detailing our method, so that others can build upon it and improve it.

Feedback on your application

Your application was not selected to progress beyond the AI triage stage. To provide transparency on the outcome of this assessment, we are sharing below the scores (out of 5) from each of the two AI review processes described above, together with the mean score across the two processes.

September 25, 2026 at 8:33 AM

by Charlie Beckett

10%

Scholar power: 10.9%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Charlie Beckett	11%	11	10.9%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

51.0%

3.2 h

0

10.9%

Ranking score

0.036

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Charlie Beckett

@charliebeckett.bsky.social

Two newsrooms doing outstanding work in the US with AI while fully aware of their audience's concerns about the technology. This article by former Polis/LSE Journalistfonden Fellow, Swedish journalist Mersiha Ajdinovic
www.journalismai.info/blog/the-cou...

The country most wary of AI is building into the newsroom anyway — JournalismAI

By Mersiha Ajdinovic

www.journalismai.info

September 25, 2026 at 11:16 AM

by Melissa Terras Reposted by Sue Timmis

31%

Scholar power: 31.0%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Melissa Terras	16%	30	26.3%
🎓 Sue Timmis	13%	13	4.7%
Total			31.0%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index + sum of each reposter's field match × √reposter's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

46.0%

18.2 h

18

31.0%

Ranking score

0.035

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Melissa Terras

@melissaterras.bsky.social

UKRI is using AI for grant reviewing. Alternatively, they could have modernised the grant review process by paying human reviewers for their labour, ensuring a wider pool and speedy turnaround. Using AI here is likely a race to the bottom: uniqueness is at risk of being ironed out. What a world.

Jane Winters @jfwinters.bsky.social · 18h

UKRI is already trialling AI-assisted assessment www.ukri.org/news/ukri-mo...

UKRI modernises grant assessment for the age of AI

UKRI is updating its grant assessment approach to speed up grant decisions, respond to generative AI and ensure we continue backing the best talent and ideas.

www.ukri.org

September 24, 2026 at 8:15 PM

by Gernot Wagner

1%

Scholar power: 1.7%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Gernot Wagner	1%	32	1.7%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

54.0%

3.1 h

0

1.7%

Ranking score

0.033

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Gernot Wagner

@gwagner.com

"Ethics of science cannot be separated from who funds it"

Goes for AI, goes for climate and most everything else, too, of course.

@financialtimes.com letter:

FT letter: Ethics of science cannot be separated from who funds it

September 25, 2026 at 11:20 AM

by Brigitte Nerlich

15%

Scholar power: 15.0%

Story's scientific field profile

Computer science 28%, Law 17%, Communication & Media Studies 17%, Sociology 14%, Political science 14%

Name	Field match	H-index	Scholar power
🎓 Brigitte Nerlich	7%	51	15.0%

Formula for scholar power: 3 × author's field match × √author's h-index

Ranking score inputs

Relevance

Recency

Reposts

Scholar power

45.0%

3.8 h

1

15.0%

Ranking score

0.032

Formula for ranking score (post): scholar_power × max((total_reposts)^(1/3), 1) × (1 / max(hours_since_posted, 1)) × (raw_relevance)^3

Brigitte Nerlich

@bnerlich.bsky.social

Wow, the worst ever AI metaphor? To save people one has to inflict immense suffering as one apparently does during extremely painful surgery (in the case of AI one has to use lots of fossil fuels to build data centres and make climate change worse) #AIMetaphorObservatory

Doug McNeall @dougmcneall.bsky.social · 4h

Comforting I’m not alone in this.

Ketan Joshi @ketanjoshi.co · 18h

Buried at the end of NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang's NYT interview: the single most terrible yet somehow confusingly appropriate metaphor for fossil-fuelled AI I have ever seen

ketanjoshi.co/2026/09/16/n...

September 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM

Add to Home Screen

News, ranked by scholars

Writers call for AI oversight

Add to Home Screen

News, ranked by scholars

Writers call for AI oversight

Scholar power: 48.5%

Scholar power: 26.6%

Scholar power: 25.2%

Scholar power: 115.1%

Scholar power: 16.2%

Scholar power: 101.7%

Scholar power: 12.7%

Scholar power: 38.4%

Scholar power: 19.0%

Scholar power: 25.5%

Scholar power: 22.5%

Scholar power: 1.8%

Scholar power: 18.3%

Scholar power: 3.9%

Scholar power: 4.3%

Scholar power: 12.0%

Scholar power: 10.9%

Scholar power: 31.0%

Scholar power: 1.7%

Scholar power: 15.0%

Sign in to LightNews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky